Meet the National League of Cities' "Sharing Economy Advisory Network."

Further Reading

The National League of Cities, a group of municipalities from across the United States, announced Thursday that it was forming a new network of startups, cities, and academics to “identify the regulatory challenges posed by the disruptive technologies that power the sharing economy.”

The aptly named “Sharing Economy Advisory Network” comes as many of its member cities have conducted sting operations and issued citations against companies like Lyft and Uber, which allow users to summon cars with the tap of a smartphone app. These cities say that such firms operate as illegal taxis and should be subject to relevant legislation. Both Lyft and Uber have previously fought and won similar battles in some jurisdictions: California formalized rideshare operations in September 2013.

For now, Gregory Minchak, a spokesman for the National League of Cities, underscored that while the umbrella group is a founding member, no individual cities have specifically joined the Sharing Economy Advisory Network to date.

Nevertheless, Uber and Lyft are facing numerous lawsuits around the country, brought often by citizens and taxi firms. One by the city of Kansas City, Missouri (a member of the National League of Cities) seeks to halt Lyft’s operations. Houston, Madison, and Pittsburgh are other members of the National League of Cities that have previously clashed with these startups.

In April 2014, Houston Mayor Annise Parker told the city council that the police force issued 26 citations to Uber and Lyft drivers for operating an illegal taxi. In St. Louis, where Lyft just began operating earlier that month, police warned that undercover officers could be posing as passengers as part of sting operations. The previous weekend, in Madison, Wisconsin, two Lyft and Uber drivers were cited by local police for operating illegally. And more recently, Uber drivers were cited in Pennsylvania and South Carolina in July.

"Our goal is to provide information that helps elected officials bring the sharing economy to their constituents," Emily Castor, director of community relations at Lyft and the new chair of the Sharing Economy Advisory Network, said in a statement.

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

"...companies like Lyft and Uber, which allow users to summon cars with the tap of a smartphone app..."

Forgive my ignorance (haven't lived in a large city with many taxis in quite a while) - do taxi services not have apps that do that sort of thing? And if not, why not? Never really understood the difference between things like Lyft/Uber and a traditional taxi besides relatively minor semantic issues (or somewhat torturous explanations that remind me of the shenanigans big businesses go through to legally avoid taxes).

If I hear Lyft or Uber describe their services as "sharing" one more time, I just might scream.

In virtually 100% of cases, the trip would not happen without a paying passenger. It is categorically not "ride sharing." These companies operate low-cost limo services, and should be expected to follow all of the regulations involved. If the city government is intentionally obstructive (which is quite possible given the entrenched nature of taxi cartels), go over their heads to the people and/or the courts but don't break the law in the meantime.

If I hear Lyft or Uber describe their services as "sharing" one more time, I just might scream.

In virtually 100% of cases, the trip would not happen without a paying passenger. It is categorically not "ride sharing." These companies operate low-cost limo services, and should be expected to follow all of the regulations involved. If the city government is intentionally obstructive (which is quite possible given the entrenched nature of taxi cartels), go over their heads to the people and/or the courts but don't break the law in the meantime.

Pretty much this. I saw an ad somewhere for one of those 2, can't remember which, that basically said something along the lines of "be your own boss / work on your own terms"...trying to get people to drive for them. So yeah, the second they're trying to get more drivers by saying its a job...they aren't ride sharing.

If I hear Lyft or Uber describe their services as "sharing" one more time, I just might scream.

In virtually 100% of cases, the trip would not happen without a paying passenger. It is categorically not "ride sharing." These companies operate low-cost limo services, and should be expected to follow all of the regulations involved. If the city government is intentionally obstructive (which is quite possible given the entrenched nature of taxi cartels), go over their heads to the people and/or the courts but don't break the law in the meantime.

Pretty much this. I saw an ad somewhere for one of those 2, can't remember which, that basically said something along the lines of "be your own boss / work on your own terms"...trying to get people to drive for them. So yeah, the second they're trying to get more drivers by saying its a job...they aren't ride sharing.

you mean something like this I stumbled across yesterday while looking for a job:

I hope that the “Sharing Economy Advisory Network” can come up with a way to get rid of the plethora of middle-man companies whose idea of sharing is taking a share while assuming no risk and doing nothing more than operating a digital bulletin board.

...the for-profit sector of the sharing economy has succeeded in large part because the real economy has been struggling. Specifically, in the magazine's view, the sharing economy succeeds because of a depressed labor market, in which "lots of people are trying to fill holes in their income by monetizing their stuff and their labor in creative ways," and that in many cases, people join the sharing economy because they've recently lost a full-time job, including a few cases where the pricing structure of the sharing economy may have made their old jobs less profitable (e.g. full-time taxi drivers who may have switched to Lyft or Uber). The magazine writes that "In almost every case, what compels people to open up their homes and cars to complete strangers is money, not trust. ... Tools that help people trust in the kindness of strangers might be pushing hesitant sharing-economy participants over the threshold to adoption. But what's getting them to the threshold in the first place is a damaged economy, and harmful public policy that has forced millions of people to look to odd jobs for sustenance.

It offends me when trendy startups like TaskRabbit talk about how great their in-office, fully stocked bar is while their rabbits are out there scraping by as independent contractors for minimum wage.

The opposition to Lyft and Uber came from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, not city government. The PUC licenses taxi services statewide, so they went into Incumbent Protectionist Mode when the ride-sharing companies showed up. Mayor Bill Peduto has been Lyft and Uber's biggest champion because A) he's a progressive, and B) he gets all the well-earned complaints about Yellow Cab's atrocious service dumped on his desk.

The opposition to Lyft and Uber came from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, not city government. The PUC licenses taxi services statewide, so they went into Incumbent Protectionist Mode when the ride-sharing companies showed up. Mayor Bill Peduto has been Lyft and Uber's biggest champion because A) he's a progressive, and B) he gets all the well-earned complaints about Yellow Cab's atrocious service dumped on his desk.

They are unlicensed limo services that provide a better product that is easier to access.

Sure, the drivers should probably be required to register with the city but other than that, I see no issues. If they taxi services weren't so sucky, Lyft and Uber wouldn't have had a chance in the market.

So, in the states that are pushing back against Lyft and Uber, when police are citing these drivers as an unlicensed whatever, are they also checking the drivers license and insurance? I know in my province you have to have a special chauffeurs license to drive vehicles for hire. Your insurance requirements are different as well. they could be dinged by the state for not meeting those requirements either.

I've never believed that Uber or Lyft are Ride Sharing. Ride Sharing or carpooling are all about situations where it is mutually beneficial. You are all commuting to and from roughly the same area so you ride together and the passengers help cover gas etc. Or you are all going down to Burning Man or where ever from the same area so you ride together. There is no sharing or mutually beneficial situation with Uber or Lyft. You are picking up someone who gets say where you are going in exchange for paying you to get there. They are a high tech limo/towncar service that is using a trendy name to justify not following the rules and possibly having under insured, improperly maintained vehicles driving people around.

Having said that I'm not a regular Uber or Lyft user as I have no reason to really use them. The one time I have used Uber it was someone who seemed to be a professional driver picking up some extra work.

They are unlicensed limo services that provide a better product that is easier to access.

Sure, the drivers should probably be required to register with the city but other than that, I see no issues. If they taxi services weren't so sucky, Lyft and Uber wouldn't have had a chance in the market.

They should also have the same insurance that limo services are required to have and they should be subject to the same service and fare regulations that limo services must obey.

I am familiar with a different industry in which people drive their own cars as "independent contractors" for business purposes. Probably less than 1% of these people have commercial auto insurance -- no surprise it's a lot more expensive. But when they have an accident and their insurance company refuses to pay because they were driving their personal car with personal insurance as a commercial vehicle, then not only they, but also the other people who are involved in wrecks with them, are pretty much out of luck.

Sooner or later some Uber driver is going to be involved in a vehicular homicide and Uber itself is going to be the target of the lawsuit that follows. I hope they're ready.

"...companies like Lyft and Uber, which allow users to summon cars with the tap of a smartphone app..."

Forgive my ignorance (haven't lived in a large city with many taxis in quite a while) - do taxi services not have apps that do that sort of thing? And if not, why not? Never really understood the difference between things like Lyft/Uber and a traditional taxi besides relatively minor semantic issues (or somewhat torturous explanations that remind me of the shenanigans big businesses go through to legally avoid taxes).

In many cities, taxis are not allowed to have radios. Their job is to cruse the city streets and pick up people who are hailing them. These cities will have cars for hire that will pick you up when requested. There might be an app that makes the request, but the company will dispatch.

Uber and Lyft work on a different system where passenger and driver will match themselves up. This presents a few issues.

One is that there services absolve themselves of all responsibility. If something happens, it's the drivers fault. The drivers are "independent contractors" responsible for their own issuance.

Another is that cities want to make sure services don't discriminate against minorities – something not discussed here. Cities make sure that African Americans aren't left at the curb, and that if someone needs to go to the non-yuppie part of town, they can get service. With Uber and Lyft, drivers decide if they want to pick up a fair or not. Someone heading to the poorer section of town? Lots of luck with Uber and Lyft.

I don't mind competition, but neither Uber or Lyft are willing to follow regulations on passenger safety, insurance, or making sure that their service isn't discriminatory.

I was in Orlando, and all of the taxi companies had an app you can use to call for a cab. However Orlando doesn't make a distinction between car service and taxi. And the app is a central dispatch.

Forgive my ignorance (haven't lived in a large city with many taxis in quite a while) - do taxi services not have apps that do that sort of thing? And if not, why not?

In many cities, you can't actually call a taxi -- you have to hail it in the street. Depending on where you are, that is either easy (a big avenue in midtown Manhattan) or virtually impossible (even Uptown Manhattan). If you want to call a car, you need to call a limo company, which tends to be significantly more expensive. The allure of Lyft & Uber is that they are competitively priced with (and sometimes cheaper than) regular taxis, and that you know exactly how far away the nearest cars are before you order it. Then, you don't have to worry about paying in cash or getting a receipt if it's a business trip, as your card is charged automatically and you receive a receipt emailed. The latter has pick-up and drop-off location, which is awesome for reimbursement.

As for why existing companies don't have this: there's generally no competition, with the state granting a limited number of licenses. A taxi license in New York costs $1m, so in effect there are very few large companies buying them and renting out taxis to drivers. There's no competition on price, as fares are regulated (Uber and Lyft compete on price, with the latter being somewhat cheaper in my experience).

floyd wrote:

The New Yorker wrote:

...the for-profit sector of the sharing economy has succeeded in large part because the real economy has been struggling. Specifically, in the magazine's view, the sharing economy succeeds because of a depressed labor market, in which "lots of people are trying to fill holes in their income by monetizing their stuff and their labor in creative ways," and that in many cases, people join the sharing economy because they've recently lost a full-time job, including a few cases where the pricing structure of the sharing economy may have made their old jobs less profitable (e.g. full-time taxi drivers who may have switched to Lyft or Uber). The magazine writes that "In almost every case, what compels people to open up their homes and cars to complete strangers is money, not trust. ... Tools that help people trust in the kindness of strangers might be pushing hesitant sharing-economy participants over the threshold to adoption. But what's getting them to the threshold in the first place is a damaged economy, and harmful public policy that has forced millions of people to look to odd jobs for sustenance.

A "sharing" economy doesn't have to be based on communist ideals of sharing resources or on kindness. There are clearly efficiency gains if someone has a spare bedroom in their house and someone else is looking for a place to stay, and that's still a form of sharing. Matching them up, handling payments, and providing insurance, like Airbnb does, is a valuable service. We also think of Zipcar as a "car sharing" service, even though it's effectively a car rental company.

The average car spends 90% of the time parked somewhere, and you're going to need on average at least two parking spots per car (one at home, one at the destination). This is a huge inefficiency from an "ownership" model. Maybe you can think of a better term than "sharing" resources, but that's really just semantics.

They should also have the same insurance that limo services are required to have and they should be subject to the same service and fare regulations that limo services must obey.

Both Uber and Lyft offer more insurance than is required of limo services, according to their websites for drivers. I very much disagree with the fare regulations, however.

Consider, for example, surge pricing. Both Uber and Lyft charge more during peak demand hours, which has two effects: it encourages drivers to work at those hours (increasing supply) and decreases demand for the cars. The result is that there are more cars available than otherwise would be and that you don't have to wait very long to be picked up. Drivers benefit, customers don't have to wait -- and while you do pay more for the same trip, that surcharge is transparently disclosed. At that point you can decide whether it's worth paying that much, taking public transit, or waiting for the end of surge pricing.

Another is that cities want to make sure services don't discriminate against minorities – something not discussed here. Cities make sure that African Americans aren't left at the curb, and that if someone needs to go to the non-yuppie part of town, they can get service. With Uber and Lyft, drivers decide if they want to pick up a fair or not. Someone heading to the poorer section of town? Lots of luck with Uber and Lyft.

You don't have to enter your destination when you request the car. Also, while taxicab and limo services aren't supposed to (or allowed to) discriminate, it still happens. You'll not find taxis driving around the Bronx in search for customers and I've had taxi drivers tell me to get out of the cab after asking for a trip outside of Manhattan. Sure, I could snap a picture of their medallion, call up their dispatcher, and file a complaint -- but what are the odds of anything being done? And it still wouldn't solve my immediate problem of not getting a ride.

Both Lyft and Uber actually solve this problem by allowing you to rate your driver. If someone refused to take you to a location (or were otherwise rude), you have all pertinent information to complain to the service. You'd also rate the driver 1 star and a lower rating for the driver means they're not going to get matched with customers unless nobody else is in the area. Similarly, abusive customers will get bad ratings and they may end up waiting a long time for someone to agree to pick them up.

Quote:

And the app is a central dispatch.

Why do we need to pay for dispatchers when an algorithm can do the matching?

Forgive my ignorance (haven't lived in a large city with many taxis in quite a while) - do taxi services not have apps that do that sort of thing? And if not, why not?

In many cities, you can't actually call a taxi -- you have to hail it in the street. Depending on where you are, that is either easy (a big avenue in midtown Manhattan) or virtually impossible (even Uptown Manhattan). If you want to call a car, you need to call a limo company, which tends to be significantly more expensive. The allure of Lyft & Uber is that they are competitively priced with (and sometimes cheaper than) regular taxis, and that you know exactly how far away the nearest cars are before you order it. Then, you don't have to worry about paying in cash or getting a receipt if it's a business trip, as your card is charged automatically and you receive a receipt emailed. The latter has pick-up and drop-off location, which is awesome for reimbursement.

As for why existing companies don't have this: there's generally no competition, with the state granting a limited number of licenses. A taxi license in New York costs $1m, so in effect there are very few large companies buying them and renting out taxis to drivers. There's no competition on price, as fares are regulated (Uber and Lyft compete on price, with the latter being somewhat cheaper in my experience).

Existing cab companies don't do this because we have livery services to do it instead(not to be confused with the more expensive Black Car services). Livery registration fees are $1,500 for three years, and unless Uber/Lyft drivers are in the business of picking up hailing passengers, it's an apples-to-oranges thing to compare them to yellow cabs. Compare them to regular livery drivers, who along with the registration fee have to ensure they have the proper vehicle insurance, worker's comp insurance for each driver they hire, and a littany of other requirements and you can see why livery services are calling foul over "ride sharing" services that think they can flout the rules because they do dispatches via smartphones instead of radios.

Quote:

floyd wrote:

The New Yorker wrote:

...the for-profit sector of the sharing economy has succeeded in large part because the real economy has been struggling. Specifically, in the magazine's view, the sharing economy succeeds because of a depressed labor market, in which "lots of people are trying to fill holes in their income by monetizing their stuff and their labor in creative ways," and that in many cases, people join the sharing economy because they've recently lost a full-time job, including a few cases where the pricing structure of the sharing economy may have made their old jobs less profitable (e.g. full-time taxi drivers who may have switched to Lyft or Uber). The magazine writes that "In almost every case, what compels people to open up their homes and cars to complete strangers is money, not trust. ... Tools that help people trust in the kindness of strangers might be pushing hesitant sharing-economy participants over the threshold to adoption. But what's getting them to the threshold in the first place is a damaged economy, and harmful public policy that has forced millions of people to look to odd jobs for sustenance.

A "sharing" economy doesn't have to be based on communist ideals of sharing resources or on kindness. There are clearly efficiency gains if someone has a spare bedroom in their house and someone else is looking for a place to stay, and that's still a form of sharing. Matching them up, handling payments, and providing insurance, like Airbnb does, is a valuable service. We also think of Zipcar as a "car sharing" service, even though it's effectively a car rental company.

The average car spends 90% of the time parked somewhere, and you're going to need on average at least two parking spots per car (one at home, one at the destination). This is a huge inefficiency from an "ownership" model. Maybe you can think of a better term than "sharing" resources, but that's really just semantics.

But zipcar is a car rental service. Drivers aren't sharing their personal cars with other vehicles, they're all using vehicles owned by Zipcar, and whatever fees you pay to Zipcar stay with Zipcar. The economic benefits come from not having to make monthly car payments and insurance payments, not from you having the burden of those payments shared by random strangers, which is what Airbnb is all about. Semantics doesn't come in to play here.

And that brings up another issue: risk. We've already seen the PR disaster that airbnb went through when it was reported that renters were using the apartments rented through airbnb as brothels. And while Airbnb has promised to take steps to prevent incidents like this in the future, this is the risk you face when you rent your place out to strangers. No matter what Airbnb does, short of paying for full background investigations for each potential renter, it's not something that can be mitigated, and this is a risk that only seems acceptable when it's outweighed by financial concerns, not because it's more efficient to have somebody occupying your room when you're not around. The New Yorker is right about this one. It is about money, not trust.

They should also have the same insurance that limo services are required to have and they should be subject to the same service and fare regulations that limo services must obey.

Both Uber and Lyft offer more insurance than is required of limo services, according to their websites for drivers. I very much disagree with the fare regulations, however.

They upped their insurance only after a Uber driver in San Franciso struck and illed a 6-year-old girl and his personal insurance refused to cover the crash.

Quote:

Consider, for example, surge pricing. Both Uber and Lyft charge more during peak demand hours, which has two effects: it encourages drivers to work at those hours (increasing supply) and decreases demand for the cars. The result is that there are more cars available than otherwise would be and that you don't have to wait very long to be picked up. Drivers benefit, customers don't have to wait -- and while you do pay more for the same trip, that surcharge is transparently disclosed. At that point you can decide whether it's worth paying that much, taking public transit, or waiting for the end of surge pricing.

But the problem wasn't surge pricing (which many livery services do, as well), but the blatant price gouging, which in some cases tripled the cost of a single fare.

Another is that cities want to make sure services don't discriminate against minorities – something not discussed here. Cities make sure that African Americans aren't left at the curb, and that if someone needs to go to the non-yuppie part of town, they can get service. With Uber and Lyft, drivers decide if they want to pick up a fair or not. Someone heading to the poorer section of town? Lots of luck with Uber and Lyft.

You don't have to enter your destination when you request the car. Also, while taxicab and limo services aren't supposed to (or allowed to) discriminate, it still happens. You'll not find taxis driving around the Bronx in search for customers and I've had taxi drivers tell me to get out of the cab after asking for a trip outside of Manhattan. Sure, I could snap a picture of their medallion, call up their dispatcher, and file a complaint -- but what are the odds of anything being done? And it still wouldn't solve my immediate problem of not getting a ride.

Both Lyft and Uber actually solve this problem by allowing you to rate your driver. If someone refused to take you to a location (or were otherwise rude), you have all pertinent information to complain to the service. You'd also rate the driver 1 star and a lower rating for the driver means they're not going to get matched with customers unless nobody else is in the area. Similarly, abusive customers will get bad ratings and they may end up waiting a long time for someone to agree to pick them up.

Quote:

And the app is a central dispatch.

Why do we need to pay for dispatchers when an algorithm can do the matching?[/quote][/quote]

This sounds like a recipe for a discrimination suit. For one thing, those passenger ratings aren't available to the passengers themselves. So much for transparency on that front. For another, on what grounds is it necessary for a driver to rate a passenger? If a passenger gets a low rating, what basis is it on? Is it because they stunk up the car? Did they talk too loudly on the cell phone? Did they have the driver make an out-of-the-way side trip? Did they passenger have a funny accent? Who knows? Not only did passengers not realize they were being rated, but they don't know the criteria behind a high or low rating. That's a problem. Giving them low ratings that result in substandard services is just as bad as the cabbies who refuse to pick up passengers because of race or where their final destination is.

But you're right. You shouldn't have to pay for dispatchers when algorighms do the same thing, but just because you're not paying somebody to verbally dispatch a driver doesn't mean you're no longer operating a livery service. Uber's playing fast and loose with the rules because technology, and on that front, it's giving them an unfair advantage.

"...companies like Lyft and Uber, which allow users to summon cars with the tap of a smartphone app..."

Forgive my ignorance (haven't lived in a large city with many taxis in quite a while) - do taxi services not have apps that do that sort of thing? And if not, why not? Never really understood the difference between things like Lyft/Uber and a traditional taxi besides relatively minor semantic issues (or somewhat torturous explanations that remind me of the shenanigans big businesses go through to legally avoid taxes).

Went to Nashville and one company had it. Told me I would get a driver in 3 minutes and sat there for the next ten "assigning" a driver. In the end I hailed a cab and it was cheaper than lyft or uber X.

They should get it right. I tried Uber & Lyft to get downtown and had to keep searching for a driver accepted the increased fee and then couldn't find a driver. Lyft finally found a driver after about 3 minutes.

If the Taxi companies got the "online" ordering right like a domino's pizza then I wouldn't see as big a need for lyft/uber. My understanding is the value propisition of lyft & Uber is that they can modify supply/demand with the price fluctuations so you don't have to wait 20+ minutes for a cab to become available.

If the city government is intentionally obstructive (which is quite possible given the entrenched nature of taxi cartels), go over their heads to the people and/or the courts but don't break the law in the meantime.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Most cities simply don't *have* laws that clearly fit Uber and its ilk. As such, cities are taking a round-peg-square-hole approach and claiming they're "illegal taxis," which is problematic on a number of levels. And yes, city governments are most definitely being obstructive, in large part because of the entrenched taxi cartels (who've donated quite generously to local city officials over the years).

I hope that the “Sharing Economy Advisory Network” can come up with a way to get rid of the plethora of middle-man companies whose idea of sharing is taking a share while assuming no risk and doing nothing more than operating a digital bulletin board.

While part of the taxi-cartel propaganda campaign against TNCs has involved rumormongering -- "Uber's drivers are uninsured, their cars aren't inspected, no one checks their background/criminal history, etc." -- most of it's a crock, including the claim that they're "assuming no risk." They're absolutely assuming risk: if a driver has an accident while he's on the clock (and assuming it was his own fault), Uber is liable for it: period. Moreover, they carry much *more* comprehensive insurance than most taxi companies.

So, in the states that are pushing back against Lyft and Uber, when police are citing these drivers as an unlicensed whatever, are they also checking the drivers license and insurance?

It varies by state. Generally speaking, however, you don't need a special license to drive for UberX -- their main "rideshare" product, not to be confused with UberBlack, which is basically a livery/town car service -- nor would police cite you for not having insurance. Instead, various cities have launched sting operations and cited them for things like "driving a taxi without a city-issued permit."

They should also have the same insurance that limo services are required to have and they should be subject to the same service and fare regulations that limo services must obey.

I must respectfully disagree. For starters, many regulations governing limo services (btw I'm including livery/town car service as "limo service" here) were put in place solely as a form of protectionism for the taxi cartel. Many cities mandate a 60-minute wait period before a summoned limo can arrive, and also mandate an exorbitant minimum charge (e.g. $50 in some cases). That's really not fair to limo drivers *or* Uber's, and it's certainly not in the consumer's best interest.

I am familiar with a different industry in which people drive their own cars as "independent contractors" for business purposes. Probably less than 1% of these people have commercial auto insurance -- no surprise it's a lot more expensive. But when they have an accident and their insurance company refuses to pay because they were driving their personal car with personal insurance as a commercial vehicle, then not only they, but also the other people who are involved in wrecks with them, are pretty much out of luck.

First, taxi drivers are independent contractors in nearly every major American city, but their parent company still has to provide insurance for them, per city ordinance. Same goes for Uber: they have comprehensive insurance for drivers who are either transporting a passenger or en route to pick one up. The one "gray area" that hasn't yet been resolved is what happens when an Uber driver is, for instance, "working" -- in the context of driving around in his car waiting for a fare to pop up on his phone -- but not *actively* working in the context of performing work for which he's being paid. That time isn't covered by Uber's commercial insurance, and as you post out, it's often not covered by their personal insurance, either. As noted, there's already been one lawsuit over an Uber driver who hit a 6-year-old girl while he wasn't technically on the clock; Uber continues to maintain that they're in no way liable.

Another is that cities want to make sure services don't discriminate against minorities – something not discussed here. Cities make sure that African Americans aren't left at the curb, and that if someone needs to go to the non-yuppie part of town, they can get service. With Uber and Lyft, drivers decide if they want to pick up a fair or not. Someone heading to the poorer section of town? Lots of luck with Uber and Lyft.

Interesting you say all that, given that the precise *opposite* is true. I don't know where you live, but in NYC, taxi drivers to this day still engage in the odious practice of redlining: either refusing to pick up street hails from persons of color, usually black men, or refusing to take them into what they (the drivers) consider to be "the ghetto." Uber and Lyft drivers, however, literally *cannot* refuse a fare once they've accepted it (and they accept fares not knowing who the passenger(s) will be or where they're headed). Failure to pick up a fare more than once results in immediate termination, since unlike taxi companies, Uber and Lyft *always* know when a fare is called and whether it's completed.

I don't mind competition, but neither Uber or Lyft are willing to follow regulations on passenger safety, insurance, or making sure that their service isn't discriminatory.

I'm afraid all of this is false as well. Every city and state that's legalized TNCs to date has mandated insurance, vehicle inspections, and extensive driver background checks -- both for driving-related offenses (e.g. reckless driving or DWI) as well as felonies and sexual assaults. The latter two automatically result in a refusal to hire someone, regardless of when the offense occurred; DWIs and reckless driving are disqualifiers if they happened in the previous seven years. The one "discriminatory" matter not yet worked out in many places -- and, to be fair, the taxi industry hasn't sort it out, either -- involves the disabled, not racial discrimination. While many cities require taxis to have X% of their fleet consist of wheelchair-accessible minivans, TNCs are a different animal given that people are driving their personal vehicles.

This sounds like a recipe for a discrimination suit. For one thing, those passenger ratings aren't available to the passengers themselves. So much for transparency on that front. For another, on what grounds is it necessary for a driver to rate a passenger? If a passenger gets a low rating, what basis is it on? Is it because they stunk up the car? Did they talk too loudly on the cell phone? Did they have the driver make an out-of-the-way side trip? Did they passenger have a funny accent? Who knows?

I do, actually. TNCs have explicit rules on how drivers should rate passengers, and drivers who routinely give out low ratings to passengers -- clearly for retaliatory are fired. That said, there are a number of valid grounds for rating a passenger poorly. Being verbally abusive to a driver, for no valid reason, probably tops the list. Not being ready to go when you request a ride -- keeping mind that you can see how many minutes away the nearest driver is *before* requesting one -- is another; making a driver wait 20 minutes, for instance, while you finishing doing your hair is just plain rude. Leaving a mess behind is a third one (and also a constant bane for taxi drivers); you'd be shocked at the number of people who think nothing about eating smelly food inside a cab and not removing the trash from it after their ride. Finally, note that TNC drivers *can't* rate passengers on the basis of tips; they're not shown the percentage a passenger has given.